国内专业英语语言教育基地,专注托福,雅思,新托福,SAT,GRE,GMAT,SSAT,初中托福等海外留学考试培训,更有外教口语,国际留学等多种项目,实行定制化针对性服务,为不同水平学员提供雅思,新托福等海外考试的高分,提分, VIP1V1,口语,听力,阅读,写作等几十种培训课程,全面提升英语综合能力水平.


2020-11-13 12:09| 来源:环球教育

摘要: 口语: 内容回忆:学校要不要给低年级的学生教授写作技巧 范文: I agree that school should teach junior students writing skills. Cause knowing how to write appropriately is the key point for their future study. Lik
I agree that school should teach junior students writing skills. Cause knowing how to write appropriately is the key point for their future study. Like my brother jimmy, he is a primary school students. If he didn’t learn how to write in the first grade, it’ll be so hard for him to finish the important report or essays that used for his further application. which means, he might lose the precious opportunity to apply for his dream school. What’s more, knowing how to write is also a beneficial way for them to express their feelings in a suitable way,even help them to cultivate their creative abilities, like trainning their brain to compose some beautiful phrases or sentences.so, teaching junior students writing skills is a thing that in need.



总论点:垃圾处理系统 single-stream recycling system 的利弊。
Both the reading and the listening discuss about the single-stream recycling system. The reading argues that such a system can be potentially risky and undesirable, while the listening holds a totally different viewpoint.


First, as the reading suggests, the staff can be easily harmed during the operation of the system. However, the listening points out that because the staff have been professionally trained and are equipped with protective clothing, the danger is unlikely to happen.


Second, the reading illustrates that the system can severely contaminate the environment. The listening, on the other hand, argues that the contamination is just a small sacrifice because it can greatly facilitate the gathering process of the garbage.


Third, the passage claims that the cost of the system is too high. However, the lecturer demonstrates that operational costs can be greatly lowered by using this system. For example, if the number of trucks decreases, the labor cost can accordingly decrease. Therefore, it can actually save the budget.



考题回忆 :

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

Experts suggest that parents should limit the time children under 13 spend on electronic devices, such as computers and cell phones, except for homework


The efforts of parenting enthusiasts and “education zealots” might not go unnoticed. Indeed, no longer do we witness the flashing light on our digital screens rubbing contemporary parents the wrong way. As the importance of IT gradually manifests itself, every tap on the keyboard has somehow been translated to the mesmerizing sound of a cash register, and a proud parent may thus claim that their children have the potential to compose the paean of accomplishment just by their fingertips, readily placed at various devices. Nonetheless, some experts in this case have decidedly made a stop in this frenzy of IT mastery, claiming that there should be a clear time limit on the use of electronic devices for those under 13. From my perspective, those experts may well deserve their professional credentials.


First, the overuse of digital devices may render the underaged blur the boundary between reality and the virtual realm. Even common sense may inform us that our cognitive system meets its maturation after puberty, and it is highly susceptible to the early exposure to external stimuli, especially before the age of 13. In this sense, the early developmental trajectory of our cognitive system by and large determines how we may perceive the world and how we understand this convoluted reality. Unfortunately, electronic devices, with all the expressive and mind-blowing visuals, straightforward and less nuanced contents, readily-available and interconnected resources, may soon take up the mind of the younger users with little effort. However, the digital domain does not function and operate the same as reality does. In reality, no more“save points” for your regrettable decisions, no more“technical issues”to be exploited without consequence, and no longer is our intimacy statistically measured, or can be gained by repetitive kind gestures. Children may therefore underestimate the gravity of their actions and unreasonably expect unrealistic results, thereby jeopardizing their own future. In this regard, the use of electronic devices should certainly be circumscribed to a reasonable limit.


Second, we should not encourage the non-involvement of the guardians any further. In this suffocating and high-pressure society, few can keep vigil at their positions, even for the ones as “noble”as parents. Sometimes we all want a little slack, and we want someone or something to shoulder the weight for us, even just for a few moments. Whereas such an action can be excusable, it can be fanned to become a tendency, especially with the  endorsement of those  “ specialists ” guaranteeing that digital devices are conducive to children ’ s development. Gradually, cyberspace has in a sense become a daycare center for those less responsible parents, wishing to be unleashed from the constraints put by their children. Consequently, parents are less and less involved in their children’s childhood and their visibility is increasingly dimmed. However, should parents be no longer patient with their children, how can we expect that they can be patient with and respectful to others when they grow up? If no one ever steps in front of them and dares to ruin their relationship because he or she cares so much about them, how indifferent would they become when they are about to assume their own responsibility?


All in all, the experts’ stance on the time limit of children’s electronic device use is reasonable and rational, as blurring the boundary between reality and the digital world can be risky and the overuse of digital devices would only discourage the involvement of parents.